Quantum mechanics is 9ne of the most succesfull theories (if not the most, empirical) yet at its roots ontological vaqueness thrives.
In QM, physicists are not sticking to the standards they set in classical mechanics: clear ontological status.
Here we had better at least be clear whether we are talking about mental states, or physical ones out there in the world, and whether the theory implies that there uncountably many other versions of our everyday reality out there, or not.
Few however believe that remaining ambivalent about this kind of thing is just not acceptable.
"Note that this is not a choice imposed on us by physics. It is a choice that we can make depending on what kind of thing we think science should be".
The obove is the view of some such as Paul Msibwood, Ph. D Philosophy of Physics, that this approach is the only defensible option.
He thinks that exploring the basic ontology of the theory and its implications is something rich and valuable to the progress of science, and more generally, a real addition to human knowledge.
Do you agree?
There can't be any such ambivalence. Quantum mechanics provides a probabilistic description of natural phenomena, when quantum fluctuations are present, bcause these fluctuations are present.
Classical mechanics, in fact, also, provides a probabilistic description of natural phenomena, in the absence of a sufficient number of constants of motion for the description to define an integrable system; indeed the vast majority of physical systems in classical mechanics are not integrable, they're deterministically chaotic.
The only thing that matters is that the rules for computing the transition probabilities between states of the system to be unambiguous. This is the case for classical as well as for quantum mechanics.
Questions related to the ontology of QM, and to the 30-odd interpretations of QM, themselves classifiable into three main broad categories (Bohmian, Objective Collapse, or Everett), have all been IMMO extremely well addressed in Shan Gao's superb 2017 book "The Meaning of the Wave Function" (published by Cambridge University Press), a book which itself built on earlier works.
By "addressed" is not necessarily always meant fully resolved : some questions are indeed resolved, some others set forth in terms of what they imply, and what their various alternatives would entail, and what may drive alternative worldviews and why.